Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 06:38:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, osa@serv.etrust.ru, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sendmail-8.9.1 in -current & in 3.0-RELEASE??? Message-ID: <199808030638.XAA11787@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199808030541.NAA25528@spinner.netplex.com.au> from "Peter Wemm" at Aug 3, 98 01:41:47 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Assuming you're talking about sendmail (which is what we're talking about > :-) - in the UCB License, where does it prohibit you from adding extra > restrictions? It doesn't. I'm just interested in avoiding these particular restrictions. Otherwise we all might as well unsubscribe here and go subscribe to the Linux lists instead, since our reason for being here is largely eroded. > I see no conflict between the original UCB copyrighted code and the entire > backage being under a more restricted "umbrella" license. Yes, it's > unfortunate that there are extra restrictions, but that's life. Considering > how sendmail development is now being funded, we came out of it pretty well > I think. The Sleepycat license (the dbm code required by sendmail is under this license) is insidious in that it is effectively GPL. It's not possible to Use (as opposed to Utilize) the source code. In other words, it makes no contribution to advancement of the arts and sciences, since it only "raises the bar" for GPL and GPL-like users, and not for commercial and other entities who actually realize they need to be able to fund their efforts by amortizing costs. This is a dangerous precedent, unless you are already a radical Stallmanite and/or member of the American Communist Party. Certainly, all my future contributions are likely to contain a fifth restriction, restricting against requiring source code distribution in derivative works. I would encourage FreeBSD to adopt this as a blanket policy, and I would encourage XFree86 and other to do the same. If people want to GPL code in furtherance of a socio-political agenda, let them write their own damn code to do it. I prefer to write code that raises the bar for everyone; if I don't raise the bar for the commercial entities by making the code commercially usable by their competitors, then commercial entities are free to ignore the advancement, and wallow in the minimal necessary advances to ensure a continued revenue stream while minimizing engineering costs. We all know a company or two wallowing in that mire, don't we? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808030638.XAA11787>